Mr. Speaker, this week the foreign affairs department released the names of the 24 Canadian victims of the World Trade Center attacks. The names, the faces, the emerging stories about those people and their loved ones remind us once again of the tragedy of September 11.

I rise in the House to let the families of the men and women who died at ground zero know that we stand alongside them. I rise to let them know that parliamentarians on all sides of the House share their grief. We will remember them.

The Prime Minister has denied a request to hold a national memorial service. It is our hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider this request.

As we remember the grief and loss of September 11, we must also lift up the timeless truths and comforts found in religious faith. Canada is richly blessed with a diversity of spiritual traditions and we welcome this diversity. Let us not ignore it. As a nation we grieve. As a nation let us lay these Canadians to rest.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are losing jobs, the dollar is at an all time low and the United States is worried about our security perimeter and border access, our government should be pursuing a priority of a North American security perimeter. Instead of that, it fights over what it should be called. Even some of its own ministers are saying that they should not be fighting over such silliness.

When will the government stop its silly game of “You say tomato; I say tomato” and get on with negotiating a security perimeter for North America to protect our citizens and Canadian business?

Mr. Speaker, I say that the premise of the hon. member's question is nonsense. In fact, his question is like a squashed tomato because we are having discussions with the United States on better ways of co-operating with respect to our common borders. The Minister of National Revenue is in Washington today to have discussions along these lines.

We take these matters very seriously. We are making progress on them, and this was confirmed by the U.S. ambassador in an interview on television yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what the U.S. ambassador, since the minister has raised it. He said that there has to be a sense of urgency about this, that we should not be just talking about these things and that it needs to move ahead and be done within a year.

Will the Prime Minister commit to negotiations and assure our American neighbours that we will implement joint immigration controls, joint screening of airline passengers and common visa policies to protect our perimeter, to protect Canadian trade and to protect our citizens? He should be specific.

Some people have put a spin on this that we want to eliminate the Canada-U.S. border. We have never suggested that. We have no plans to suggest that. We're talking about using technology as an ally on the U.S.-Canada border...some people have tried to spin this out of control.

If we look at what the American ambassador has said, it is directly in line with our approach, and he has certainly not adopted the fallacious Alliance approach.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is really quite serious about this security perimeter. In spite of the infighting, we would like to propose something from the U.S. It asked for a specific proposal: visas from visitors from the Saudi Arabia.

Some of the individuals involved in the tragedy were from Saudi Arabia. Will the government consider visas for visitors from Saudi Arabia and show the U.S. good faith in these negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of days we have repeated on numerous occasions in the House that we are discussing with the Americans a number of issues as they relate both to visas and to greater security.

I want to assure the member opposite that if he or anyone else has good ideas of things we should be talking to the Americans about, I ask them to give us those ideas.

Mr. Speaker, the many regions of Canada and Quebec that depend on the forestry industry were already hard hit by the U.S. countervailing duties on softwood lumber.

But yesterday, the United States announced an additional antidumping duty of 12.6%, which further affects business and workers.

To support our regions, will the Prime Minister commit to asking President Bush to respect the spirit of the Free Trade Agreement by suspending all American duties on softwood lumber until the WTO issues its ruling?

Pat O'BrienLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the Prime Minister has raised this issue with President Bush on several occasions and as recently as at APEC last week in Shanghai.

Our policy is to proceed on a two track approach to this. We have filed at the WTO on October 25, and a series of intensive discussions with American and Canadian officials continues. However the solution to this is very clear and it has been clear all along. The Americans need to live up to the free trade spirit they claim to adhere to.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may well have spoken to President Bush about this at APEC last week, but this decision was made yesterday at noon, and it is more urgent than ever.

I think that he must make another call, especially since the American allegations have always been rejected. Softwood lumber is not subsidized and the United States is well aware of this. What the Americans are doing is using stalling tactics; meanwhile, our industry is suffering.

Will the Prime Minister tell President Bush that we have had enough of their free trade talk and their protectionist walk? They will have to be consistent, and the Prime Minister needs to set things straight with the U.S. president.

Pat O'BrienLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have seen the hon. member be naive in the House of Commons. However, I am afraid he is if he believes that the president of the United States is not subject to all kinds of pressure in his congress and that we do not have a situation where he needs to work with congress for certain other initiatives which he wants to take. The fact is his administration has been supporting this.

Privately we can get a different message, but publicly it is very clear that our approach has to be to consistently go forward with a two track policy and with a legal approach, if necessary, which we will win again. At the same time, we have to proceed with the discussions we have been having and which continue in Washington--

Mr. Speaker, the economy of regions in Quebec will be hard hit by the Americans' decisions to impose anti-dumping duties on top of countervailing duties, for a total of 30% . Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade said he was prepared to organize a meeting of the stakeholders at the appropriate time. I hope he got the message from the industry, which is asking him to organize the meeting.

Since the stakeholders in the softwood lumber industry want a meeting immediately to be sure that everyone is working together, does the Minister for International Trade intend to invite everyone to a meeting as soon as possible?

Pat O'BrienLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member realizes that the minister and his officials are in daily contact with the stakeholders in this situation. We have tremendous support from the provinces. We have the support of most people in the industry. There are a few nervous nellies in one part of the country, but most of the industry supports the Minister for International Trade. He is showing outstanding leadership in keeping this consensus together and is in daily contact with those people who are affected by this file.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the impression that the parliamentary secretary reads the same papers or the same press releases we do from industry representatives who are demanding a meeting immediately.

Is it not time for Canada and its American allies to launch a vast advertising campaign in the States to explain to Americans what they are doing to the Canadian industry, their prime trading partner, and to explain to American consumers that it is they who are footing the bill of the protectionist policy of their government and industry?

Pat O'BrienLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague is aware that there have been a number of initiatives taken by this government in the United States through the Canadian embassy, through a trip of the parliamentary subcommittee, which he and I attended, and through visits by the Canadian Parliamentary Association to build support in the United States because they understand that the American consumer is being unfairly hurt by the inefficient practices in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are joining our call for a sunset clause in Bill C-36, the Canadian bar, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Newspaper Employees' Guild, Canadian Civil Liberties, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Special Senate Committee and others.

It is time for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to send a clear signal that they will support a sunset clause. Will they do that today?

Mr. Speaker, what it is really time for is respect for the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It has in fact been working hard. I am going to return to that committee late next week. At that time, the committee and I will engage directly in a discussion around issues surrounding review mechanisms, be it a three year review or other proposals that I am sure members of the committee will put forward.

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is conveniently ignoring the fact that Bill C-36 is a particular threat to visible minorities and that is why there is a split in this caucus.

If the Prime Minister refuses to listen to Canadians, perhaps he can listen to his colleagues. They are worried about this bill and its potential for abuse. Instead of bullying them, perhaps the Prime Minister could start listening to them.

Why will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice not act on their advice and commit now to a sunset clause?

Mr. Speaker, again let me make it absolutely plain that the definition of terrorist activity in this legislation does not target minorities. It does not target religious groups. It targets terrorist activity. It targets terrorist organizations and their supporters, those who would kill, those who would maim and those who would destroy innocent civilians.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Canada has no comprehensive program to manage our borders and to protect the quick and free movement of goods and services within North America.

If Canada continues to wait, the Americans will impose a made in America model for border management.

Will the government propose a binational border management agency, a Canadian initiative that would assert our sovereignty and jointly monitor and manage the movement of goods and people into and out of North America?